Was Sisko a Javert

[DonIago]

The situations aren't analogous. The US has neither the resources nor the technology available within the UFP.

A more analogous situation might be if you moved into a house located near an airport, knowing full well that the airport might be able to buy you out at some point, and then they exercised that right.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And if you had a hundred or so different locations all ready for you to move to.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Your location says you're from California.. would you feel the same if the US ceded California to Mexico as part of an agreement to stop drug cartel violence, and the Mexican Army began to oppress the people there? You'd just up and leave and not care because the rest of the US is prosperous? Even if it was your own family that was indiscriminately targeted?

That's a pretty good argument. It's not an easy answer.

But all that hinges on the colonists being pre warned not to colonize an empty planet near a hostile border and choosing to do it anyway.

And as DonIago and George Steinbrenner pointed out, whether the colonists and the Federation was so poor there was a desperate need to colonize and there was a big land grab going on.

20 something years ago, if the planets were uninhabited, and the border heavily disputed, and the colonists came to the planet, and they were warned not to by Starfleet, it doesn't make the colonists look too sane. Or make sense.

Especially when Trek made it a point to say how prosperous the Federation was. There was plenty for all. No persecution or anything.

Even more so when you see it's mainly earth humans involved--what excuse do they have? Bajorans would make sense, but humans needing to colonize?

Was all of this because of some 'adventurous spirit' some pampered, well fed colonists (excusing the Bajorans and others) had?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The federation hunted the Maquis down as animals after Cardassia helped its DMZ colonists break the treaty - but the federation didn't fail them? Really?

A federation using biological weapons against a federation colony (which threatened to kill men, women, children - citizens of the UFP -, and, in all probability, killed a number of them) because one maquis - Eddington - used a biological weapon, is not a federation that failed its maquis citizens? Ridiculous.
Also - nice to see the ethics of the federation are the ethics of war criminals.

The federation let the its DMZ citizens be massacred without doing a single thing - I guess that, as the federation saw it, it had only rights over them (to hunt them down and poison their colonies for breaking its laws) but no obligations (to protect them).
And this is the federation not failing the Maquis.

Which part of "the colonists chose to live under the Cardassian government" wasn't clear to you?

Which part of - watch 'The Maquis' again - is not clear to you?
Among the many revelations you will have is that the colonists chose to live in the DMZ under federation government.
Also, if the Maquis were really under Cardassian government, then the federation had no right to hunt them down as criminals, etc.

As for the rest of your post, your attempts to blame the victims are transparent enough to be clear to everyone who caress to look at the depicted situation even half-way objectively.

(laughs) Okie-doke.

Okie-dokie what?

You're obviously wrong, but don't have the courage to own up to it, I see.

 

[DonIago]

I don't have the "courage" to debate someone I've never met who uses a line like that on a bulletin board?

I suppose I'll just go stick my head in the oven in shame then.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I don't have the "courage" to debate someone I've never met who uses a line like that on a bulletin board?

Apparently so.
And yes, it is weird.

 

[Tuvok]

I think personally it can be broken thusly...

Was Sisko a Javert.

A man obsessed over another petty crime vis a via stolen bread.

In the end regarding said original question, the answer is simply and undeniably no.

Eddington didn't steal bread. He was welcomed into Sisko home, feed. Trusted and expected to honor his duties as given.

He stole from said Home .

That's strike one.

He took action against the Federation, his uniform by tricking and crippling a Ship pursuring him for said crime.

Was it self defense , pretty much. But that could have gone wrong on so many ways. A wrong wire and dead Federation officers.

That's strike two.

He used a bio terrorist weapon on a defenceless target. And then crippled a refugee ship escaping said attack.

That folks is strike three

Sisko was no Javert to a harmless innocent who did a minor crime. He was however more then happy to play one to catch a man who can poison a planet and still clam moral authority.

If he brought a hammer to discipline a naughty child then he was a Javert. If he used the same tactics as his Eddington and played the villain then he was what happens when you decide to go around Bio nuking worlds.

If ya don't want to get mauled then don't poke the bear.

 

[R. Star]

If he brought a hammer to discipline a naughty child then he was a Javert. If he used the same tactics as his Eddington and played the villain then he was what happens when you decide to go around Bio nuking worlds.

Sisko should've been sharing a cell with Eddington over that.

 

[DonIago]

I don't have the "courage" to debate someone I've never met who uses a line like that on a bulletin board?

Apparently so.
And yes, it is weird.

Your willingness to engage in personal attacks betrays your lack of interest in an honest and open discussion of the matter.

 

[R. Star]

I don't have the "courage" to debate someone I've never met who uses a line like that on a bulletin board?

Apparently so.
And yes, it is weird.

Your willingness to engage in personal attacks betrays your lack of interest in an honest and open discussion of the matter.

You're both talking about one another and not the subject by now. Let's switch gears back to Sisko and Eddington. More civil.

 

[DonIago]

^Agreed.

 

[Tuvok]

If he brought a hammer to discipline a naughty child then he was a Javert. If he used the same tactics as his Eddington and played the villain then he was what happens when you decide to go around Bio nuking worlds.

Sisko should've been sharing a cell with Eddington over that.

Good point...but I can easily see why this was ignored by the higher ups.

******************8

Starfleet Intelligence officer- Oh look , apparently Sisko used a bio mass weopen on a Marquis settlement.

Starfleet Admiral - The Marquis, the Federation colonist?

Starfleet Intelligence officer - Ah no, sir . Apparently the Marquis are a resistance movement made of former Federation colonist.

Starfleet Admiral - So not Federation?

Starfleet Intelligence officer- No sir, in fact they stole Federation supplies, attacked and crippled a Federation ship and nearly caused a war.

Starfleet Admiral- Still, just going in without warning and bio nuking a planet..

Starfleet Intelligence officer - Actually Siskio warned them first, which is funny cause the day previously the Marquis poisoned a Cardarssian colony and shot at and crippled refugees escaping said attack. In that attack there was no warning.

Starfleet Admiral - Hmmmm, stole our resources. Attacked our ships. And bought to heel by our last ,best defence against the Dominion.

Starfleet Intelligence Officer - Yeah, its a bit grey

Sloan ( Section31 )- Not really , I wouldn't have bothered with a warning.

***********************

I know that Big Gene kind of handed the Federation the kick me sign by declaring that it's a Utopia filled with flawless persons with enlightenment and moral superiority shining out the ass. But in Ds9 , Starfleet was shown to be a bit more realist in terms of actions needed and taken.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The situations aren't analogous. The US has neither the resources nor the technology available within the UFP.

A more analogous situation might be if you moved into a house located near an airport, knowing full well that the airport might be able to buy you out at some point, and then they exercised that right.

^ And if you had a hundred or so different locations all ready for you to move to.

Assuming there were a hundred or so different locations all ready for them to move to and ample ships to do it with, we don't know how big the colony populations were or how many M-class planets the federation had available to just move people to (since they terraforms planets its probably not an infinite supply).

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The situations aren't analogous. The US has neither the resources nor the technology available within the UFP.

A more analogous situation might be if you moved into a house located near an airport, knowing full well that the airport might be able to buy you out at some point, and then they exercised that right.

^ And if you had a hundred or so different locations all ready for you to move to.

Assuming there were a hundred or so different locations all ready for them to move to and ample ships to do it with, we don't know how big the colony populations were or how many M-class planets the federation had available to just move people to (since they terraforms planets its probably not an infinite supply).

On the other hand - we have seen dozens of inhabited worlds, none of which appeared to be ridiculously overpopulated. There's no reason the colonists absolute must have gone to an unpopulated world, rather than an already established one.

 

[DonIago]

I think the argument that the colonists couldn't be moved fails as it's never raised in any episodes. There's never a "Oh crap, we need to move the colonists but have no place to put them!" moment.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I think the argument that the colonists couldn't be moved fails as it's never raised in any episodes. There's never a "Oh crap, we need to move the colonists but have no place to put them!" moment.

I thought it was fairly clearly stated that they expressly did have the option to leave, but that they simply didn't want to. Of course, it's been a long time since I've seen TNG, so I may be wrong.

 

[DonIago]

That's the impression I got as well.

 

[MikeS]

Your location says you're from California.. would you feel the same if the US ceded California to Mexico as part of an agreement to stop drug cartel violence, and the Mexican Army began to oppress the people there? You'd just up and leave and not care because the rest of the US is prosperous? Even if it was your own family that was indiscriminately targeted?

ESPECIALLY if it was my own family that was targeted. I'd be pissed off, but I wouldn't keep them in a dangerous place.

it's been a long time since I've seen TNG, so I may be wrong.

I think this is the crux of the difference of opinion in this thread. The Maquis were portrayed quite differently in Journey's End & Preemptive Strike than they were in The Maquis. I remember watching the Native Americans in Journey's End and feeling no sympathy for their cause. Yes, your ancestors were f**ked over, but so what? Just move and be safe (and help form a peace) rather than digging your heels in.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Does it really matter whether The Maquis were right or wrong to live where they were living? This episode was never about Sisko's view of The Maquis, it was about his view of one man who betrayed him, and the insane lengths he would go to have his ego sated.

Sisko poisoned two maquis colonies, potentially killing thousands of people if they could not evacuate in time all for the sake of sticking it to a guy who got the better of him. As much as i love The Sisko i could never agree with his actions and i think this episode conveniently gets forgotten whenever there is a 'sisko is better than janeway'/'sisko is the best captain' thread.

Janeway cops so much flak for her actions in 'equinox' Whilst her actions were unbecoming of a Starfleet Captain, she did it to stop a man who not only was killing an innocent alien species for fuel but had also attempted to murder her entire crew by taking the only protection they had.

Eddington was aiding the Maquis because of his own desire to be a hero and to support something he clearly believed was right. Eddington didn't join the maquis to spite sisko, yet sisko had to take it personally. So Eddington stole some replicators, the way sisko responded you would think the guy had killed Jake

Was sisko a javert? No, because from what i remember of les miserables, javert sounds a hell of a lot like odo and his need for order and justice. Sisko was not motivated by justice when he went after eddington it was ego fueled revenge.

 

[DonIago]

Your argument would be stronger if there was any evidence that anyone actually did die. Also, Sisko only poisoned one colony, and as his own log indicates, the worst thing that happens is that the displaced Cardassians and Maquis swap planets. It's certainly not conventional, but it doesn't seem to have been especially horrific either.